Overview

Health Policy Projects

Trade Policy Projects

Climate Policy Projects

Clinic Work at End of Semester

Selection Criteria/
Application Process

Current Clinic Students

Informational Video

**SUPPLEMENTAL** APPLICATION

The Harrison Institute’s policy clinic supports actors who shape and make public policy.  Some of our clients are nonprofit coalitions that promote policy change at various levels – local, state, federal, and international.  Most of our clients are decision-makers, primarily at the state level, including legislators, attorneys general, regulatory agencies, and their national associations.  These are some of the questions we tackle:

• Trade – Do foreign investor rights constrain financial reform?  Will trade rules on services undermine domestic regulation of energy, the environment or financial services?
• Health – How can states and communities promote better nutrition, particularly in schools?  Do cities have the authority to build a new food economy?  How can the law protect people from genetic discrimination in long-term, disability and life insurance?
• Climate – How can states protect their role as innovators on climate policy?  How can state and local governments adapt to rising seas and hotter summers?  Do states have the authority to reduce carbon in transportation fuels?

POLICY ROLE  

Students in the policy clinic analyze law-making authority, identify options for changing policy, help our clients plan their strategy, and draft policy documents based on client choices. 

Focus on federalism. State governments represent local needs; they spend federal money; they regulate most services; they link local and global interests.  They are big enough to affect national policy, yet they are flexible enough to adapt and experiment with policies that often paralyze Congress and federal agencies.  Regardless of party, issue, or geography, our clients are passionate about using and preserving the role of states as laboratories of democracy.  We therefore focus on state innovation as a catalyst for national policy and, increasingly, on federalism as a model for international relations and standard setting.

Range of services.  The services most frequently requested by our clients include:

• Manage a strategic planning process
• Analyze limits on lawmaking authority
• Analyze policy options at all levels – local, state, federal and international
• Draft policy proposals including model legislation, agency rules, and association policies
• Organize public hearings and present testimony
• Prepare policy briefs and web pages for public education
• Train community leaders and build capacity of their institutions
• Create the legal structure for an association or network
• Make presentations to conferences

Seminar Curriculum.  Seminars stress active learning through student presentations or interaction with practitioners and legislative leaders.  Seminars are on Friday mornings for three hours; they are often supplemented by smaller team meetings.  

• Orientation (August 30-31) introduces policy roles, project topics and strategy.
• Fall seminars emphasize research, analysis, and writing skills.

• Spring seminars emphasize strategy, interaction with practitioners, and presentations.

Clinical Teaching Methods.  In the policy clinic, students work at least 25 hours per week (average) for two semesters.  About half of this time is highly structured interaction between students and faculty, which creates a blueprint for independent student work.  Expectations for student-faculty interaction are average hours per week.

Highly structured interaction – 12.5 hrs/wk.

• Seminars – 6.5 hrs/wk.
• Team meetings – 1.5 hrs/wk.
• Supervisor meetings – 1.5 hrs/wk.
• Client or constituency meetings – 2 hrs/wk.
• Peer critique – 1 hr/wk.

Independent student work – 12.5 hrs. per week. For every hour of highly structured time, students spend an hour reflecting and developing their skills through planning, research and analysis, drafting, formatting work products, and practicing presentations. 

The health team works to increase access to care and nutrition for some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens.  Over the past several years, the team has analyzed health funding streams, legal issues related to federal health reform, emergency preparedness strategies, workforce policies that support Community Health Workers (CHWs), international tobacco control, consumer protection in genetic testing, and community food policy.

Clients and collaborators. The health team has recently worked with the following constituencies:

• Federal agencies – are implementing health reform. We have recently worked with:

  • Health Care Dynamics International, a contractor for the U.S. government, in support of policy projects for the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services: Center for Public Integrity (CPI) and the Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs (OSORA).
  • Centers for Disease Control, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity.
• Non-profit organizations – are working to implement and guide change on the state, national, and international levels in areas such as food and nutrition, health insurance coverage, and tobacco control. Over the past several years we have worked with:
  • School Food Focus, a project of Public Health Solutions (New York City)
  • Washington Sustainable Food & Farming Network (WSFFN)
  • National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), an independent academy of state health policymakers working together to identify emerging issues, develop policy solutions, and improve state health policy and practice.
  • Framework Convention Alliance (FCA), a coalition of international NGOs that support tobacco control legislation in countries around the world.
• State and local legislators, agencies, and other allies – are taking the lead to improve the health and nutrition of their communities. We work with:
  • Washington State Department of Agriculture
    
  • Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
  • Baltimore Food Policy Task Force, along with the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
  • National Conference of State Legislature
  • Individual legislators in Maryland, California, Connecticut
  • Maryland Attorney General, Office of Consumer Protection
• O’Neill Institute of National and Global Health Law – advances law as a fundamental tool for solving critical health problems in global, national, and local communities. The Institute unites faculty from Georgetown’s law and health campuses.
  

Recent projects. Students analyze the legal and administrative structure for health policy and funding in major programs that are implemented at the federal and state level.  The range of issues includes:

• Food and nutrition – As the obesity rates in the U.S. continue to rise, particularly in young children, many cities are dealing with the double burden of obese and nutritionally deficient children and adults, particularly in low income areas.  Research indicates that children and adults in low-income areas do not have equal access to nutritious foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables.  We work with school systems that want to purchase unprocessed local food, as well as state and local governments that are using their land use, regulatory and development powers to support delivery systems for fresh food.
• Federal health reform – fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid – Reducing fraud, waste, and abuse is often cited as a way to reduce spending on federally-subsidized health care programs.  In 2010 alone, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates it made over $70 billion in improper payments.  Moving away from the pay and chase model, CMS is looking at data analysis as a tool to combat fraud, waste, and abuse.  This analysis will save the federal government money as well as protecting patients from unnecessary medical procedures.  The Affordable Care Act provided additional tools for CMS and other federal agencies to address fraud in health care more aggressively.  The question is, does CMS have the legal framework it needs for working with states to share data and prosecute fraud and abuse?
• Federal health reform – legal barriers – It is critical that advocates of health reform anticipate and resolve legal barriers to substantive health reform.  On topics such as federal mandates and insurance exchanges, we assisted in crafting 13 papers that provided policymakers with concise analysis of potential barriers and a range of solutions for each.
  
• Genetic discrimination – People are increasing their use of genetic testing to learn about their dispositions to disease and hereditary traits.  In May 2008, the federal government enacted the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which prohibits the use of genetic testing for employment or health insurance.  GINA specifically omitted long-term, disability and life insurance, and it left states to regulate this area.  Genetic tests marketed directly to consumers can be misleading and potentially harmful to consumers; state governments can take action to prevent these harms by policing the advertising of tests.

The trade team analyzes the effect of global agreements on state and local government and supports local initiatives to influence global institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

Clients and collaborators. The trade team works with several interconnected networks of clients and collaborators:

• Forum on Democracy & Trade–organizes seminars for public officials and publishes our work on the web as an online resource for public officials who work on trade policy.

• State legislative committees–request our testimony at oversight hearings and analysis for corresponding with congressional delegations and U.S. trade negotiators.

• Maine – Maine Citizens Trade Policy Commission
• Massachusetts – Massachusetts Trade Policy Commission
• New Hampshire – New Hampshire Trade Policy Commission
• Vermont - Study Committee on International Trade and State Sovereignty
• Washington – Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Trade Policy
• Utah – Utah International Trade Commission
  

• Government associations – request our presentations at national conventions and use our analysis for corresponding with congressional committees and U.S. trade negotiators.

• Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC)
• SweatFree Procurement Consortium (SPC)
• National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)
• National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
• National Association of Counties (NACO)
• International Municipal Lawyers’ Association (IMLA)

• International organizations - request analysis and presentations to international meetings.

• South Centre – Geneva
• Third World Network – Geneva
• National Economic Development and Labour Council – Johannesburg
• International Labor Organization (ILO – Washington Office)
• UN Economic Commission on Latin American and the Caribbean

Recent projects. The range of trade team includes:

• Trade limits on domestic regulation – A coalition of countries in the WTO is pushing for “disciplines” on domestic regulation of services that, if adopted, would limit the power of governments to regulate service industries (energy, banking, hazardous waste, etc.) and alter the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and states.  We are working with both national and subnational governments that seek to moderate these proposals in keeping with democratic traditions.
• Foreign investor rights – More than 2,500 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) provide foreign investors with greater substantive and procedural rights than those provided under the Constitution to seek compensation for regulatory measures that adversely affect their investments.  Recent BITs and FTAs negotiated by the United States give standing to U.S. investors to challenge state and federal laws as “foreign investors” through their subsidiaries in another country.  South American countries have begun to develop alternative standards of investor protection that are more consistent with their domestic law.  BIT negotiations with China and India that started in 2008 will elevate the visibility of foreign investment issues.  Most recently, we have focused on negotiations to include an investment chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP, nine nations) and investor strategies to incorporate WTO trade rules into their investment disputes (e.g., Philip Morris International v. Uruguay).
• Core labor standards – In the bipartisan trade deal of 2007, the Bush administration and Democratic leaders in Congress promised to incorporate core labor standards (CLS) in U.S. trade agreements.  As a charter member of the International Labor Organization (ILO), the United States has a long-standing commitment to honor CLS, which include freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of forced and compulsory labor, the abolition of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace.  We are working with state and local governments that seek to implement CLS through their procurement powers.
• Agricultural subsidies – U.S. crop subsidies are affecting the U.S. bargaining position in trade negotiations.  Some provisions in the most recent Farm Bill (like supporting environmental conservation programs) are both WTO-consistent and promote diversified rural development.  However, the continuation of subsidy programs for cotton, corn, rice, wheat and soy is likely to violate trade rules and provoke more trade disputes with Brazil, Canada and other countries.
• Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor – promotes innovations in policy to promote broadly shared economic justice and respect for the dignity of labor.  The Initiative unites Georgetown’s faculties in law, history, business, and foreign service.

During a decade of federal inaction on climate policy, American states filled the gap with experimental programs and regional market initiatives in the Northeast, West, and Midwest.  After a flurry of federal activity in 2008-2009, the pendulum is again shifting back to the states.

Clients and collaborators:

• Georgetown Climate Center – was created in early 2009 at the request of leading foundations and state governments to serve as a bridge between the states and the federal government and as a resource for states as they develop their own climate policies.

• State and local governments – reflect the diversity of regional exposure to climate risks, economic development interests, and political leadership.  On behalf of the Georgetown Climate Center, we have worked directly with state and local governments:

• California, the Air Resources Board

• Maryland, the Department of Natural Resources, the City of Baltimore, City of Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County

• District of Columbia, departments of environment and planning, among others

• City of Milwaukee

• Connecticut

• Virginia

• Government associations – request our presentations at their conferences and use our toolkits and policy models

• Coastal States Organization (CSO)

• West Coast Governors Alliance

• Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)

Recent projects:  Our climate projects respond to two needs:  mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change:

• Adapting to sea level rise – As the seas continue to rise, coastal communities face increasing flooding, erosion and storm surge, which will destroy ecosystems and cause significant property damage.  We are working with state and local governments that seek to minimize these effects by adapting their coastal planning, flood plain management and zoning laws.  To date, we have developed a Sea Level Rise (SLR) Tool Kit analyzing 18 different land-use tools that governments could use to adapt, drafted a model SLR zoning ordinance, and tested the model for state, federal and constitutional law barriers.  We also analyzed potential barriers to adaptation posed by Army Corp of Engineers permitting practices and the National Flood Insurance Program.

• Adapting to urban heat – Pavement and buildings lack shade and absorb heat; they make cities a “heat island” compared to surrounding rural areas:  on average, about 5 degrees hotter in the day and 20 degrees hotter at night.  Between 1979 and 2003, extreme heat caused more deaths (about 700 per year) in the United States than hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined.  When you consider the predictions for global warming on top of that, U.S. heat related deaths could rise to between 3,000 and 5,000 deaths annually by 2050.  We are working with local governments that want to reduce their heat island by using built-environment approaches such as cool roofs, green roofs, cool pavements, and urban forestry.  To that end, we are developing a set of policy tools that include mandates, incentives, and public education.

• Preemption of low-carbon fuel standards – States have developed some of the most progressive low-carbon fuel standards and markets for carbon trading.  The industry is challenging the leading state, California, on constitutional and preemption grounds.  We are analyzing alternative ways to preserve state authority (legislation, rulemaking, litigation) and minimize the impact of the industry lawsuits.

• Sustainability standards – The European Union has adopted “sustainability standards” for screening fuel imports.  These standards consider a number of factors such as impact of fuel production on land use, food prices and availability, and water pollution.  At the request of state governments, we are analyzing whether states have the authority and capacities necessary to implement sustainability standards, and if so, what form those standards could take.

The Harrison Institute depends on its students to complete the work commitments they make to their clients or project teams.  This requires careful planning throughout the year in order to create reasonable expectations.  If students do not complete their work commitments by the last day of class, the Institute requires that they do so by May 15th.